Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 166
Instituted on : 15.03.2022
Decided on : 29.05.2024
Parvesh Hooda age 36 years s/o Sewa Singh R/o Aashraan Sanghi (83), Rohtak (M) 9466289809.
……….………….Complainant.
Vs.
- Pawan Khad Beej Bhandar VPO Sanghi, Rohtak.
- Oswal Crop Protection Pvt. Ltd. 310, Gupta Tower, Commercial Complex Azadpur, Delhi 110033(Marketed By).
- Mansoon Agro Chemical Pvt. Ltd. Khasar no. 55/2/1, Peepli Khera Road. Village Ram Nagar, Ganur, Sonipat (Manufactured By)
...........……Respondent/opposite parties.
COMPLAINT UNDER CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR. VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER
Present: Sh.Krishan Dhull, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.J.P.Sangwan Advocate for the opposite party No.2 & 3.
Opposite party No.1 already exparte.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case as per the complainant are that respondent No.1 is the retailer of COMBITEC fertilizer and respondent No.2 & 3 are the marketing and manufacturer of COMBITEC Fertilizers situated at above stated address and respondent No.1 is purchasing the said product from respondent No.2 & 3. Complainant had purchased one 03 pack of the said product on 15.01.2022 from respondent No.1 to destroy weed (Khartpatwar) for his agriculture land to save wheat. The complainant used the same fertilizer in his agricultural land on the same day as per direction/instruction marked by the company on 15.01.2022. After the usage of the same product in the agriculture land, all the crops situated in the 3 killa was fully destroyed within 10 days. The complainant approached the respondent No. 1 and reported about the same but respondent No.1 replied the same in a very irresponsible manner that respondent no.1 has nothing to do with the same and it is not a fault of him. Complainant also reported the same incident to the respondent No. 2 & 3 but they gave the same reply as given by respondent No.1. After that complainant gave the complaint in the department of Krishi Vibhag and the department gave the report of loss of crop failure upto 25-30% in 03 Killas. When the complainant asked the respondent No. 1 to 3 to cover up the loss due the side effect of their product but the respondents refused to cover up any loss for which they are liable. The act of opposite parties is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to cover the loss of crops as per report given by Krishi Vibhag of Rs.2,00,000 (Two Lakh Only), to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony and harassment and Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint, notices was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party No.1 filed its written statement and has submitted that the respondent No.1 had purchased the said product from Oswal Crop Protection Pet, Ltd. and supplied to the complainant in same condition. The respondent is only retailer of the aforesaid product and there is no liability of any kind on the part of the respondent, the liability if any, the same can be fastened upon the manufacturer of the said product only. On merits, it is submitted that no description of land has been given by complainant. However, no copy of fard jamanadi has been supplied to the respondent with the copy of summon and complaint. The complainant has failed to use the said product over the crops as per the instructions and guidelines prescribed on the wrapper of pack and complainant himself is liable and negligence to suffer any damage of his crops, there is no liability of the respondent in any manner. It is wrong that the crop failure was fully due to the side effects of fertilizer. The complainant has not suffered any loss and never met with the respondent as alleged. Complainant suffered loss due to calamity or other reason of weather, for which complainant cannot take benefit of his own wrongs. The alleged report of department of Krishi Vibhag is false, wrong and procured one by the complainant. The complainant has not suffered alleged loss due to the said product. No alleged inspection has ever been made by the official of Krishi Vibhag in the presence of opposite party. The alleged report, if any, is false and procured one. In the report there is no mention about the reason of alleged damage so the same is not reliable and has no sanctity in the eyes of law. After purchase of alleged product, complainant did, not contact to the opposite party. There is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied. There is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.1 and dismissal of complaint has been sought. Opposite party No.2 & 3 in their reply has also re-iterated the facts mentioned in the reply filed by the opposite party no.1 and prayed for dismissal of complaint.
3. Ld. Counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavits Ex.CW1/10 to Ex.CW1/12, documents Ex.CW1/1 to Ex./CW1/9 and closed his evidence on 09.03.2023. On the other hand, ld. counsel for the opposite party No.2 & 3 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R3 and closed his evidence on dated 20.02.2024. Opposite party no.1 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 04.10.2023 of this Commission for non appearance.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. In the present complaint, complainant has placed on record copy of bill Ex.CW1/4, as per which he had purchased 3 packets of Combitec Oswal crop protection medicine from the opposite party No.1 for a sum of Rs.1800/-. Complainant has contended that due to spray of alleged weedicides in his fields, his crops were destroyed and he suffered a huge loss. To prove this fact, he has placed on record inspection report Ex.CW1/2 issued by a committee of SDAO, Rohtak, BAO, Rohtak and Subject Specialist(Member) Rohtak, who inspected the 3 acres land of Sh.Pravesh s/o Sh. Sewa Singh in the presence of complainant and his brother Naveen on dated 03.02.2022. A joint report has been issued by the agriculture department in which inspection team assessed the 25-30% loss in 3 acres of land. Photographs and report placed on record as Ex.CW1/2 and Ex.CW1/3 reveals that there is loss of 30% to the crops of the complainant. As per our opinion the yield of wheat in one acre of land is approximately 28 quintal. He suffered 30% loss in 3 acres of land. Meaning thereby he suffered approximately 10 quintal per acre and price of one quintal is Rs.2200/-. As such the yield of wheat crop per acre comes to Rs.2200/- x 10 i.e. Rs.22000/- and in 3 acres it comes to Rs.66000/-.Hence the total loss in 3 acres land comes to Rs.66000/- and opposite party No.3 being the manufacturer is liable to pay the same to the complainant.
6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party No.3 to pay a sum of Rs.66000/-(Rupees sixty six thousand only) on account of loss of crop alongwith interest @ 9% p.a from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 15.03.2022 till its realization to the complainant. Opposite party No.3 is further directed to pay Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision.
7. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
29.05.2024.
........................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Tripti Pannu, Member.
……………………………….
Vijender Singh, Member
